HC Deb 09 February 1987 vol 110 cc100-10

`In section 83(3) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph: (cc) regulations prescribing amounts under section 32(2)(a) above;"'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Beckett

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a minor and relatively technical matter, but it is one which the Government might do well to consider. The intention is to ensure that regulations made in this context come before the House on the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. This is the only way in which to ensure that the regulations are debated other than by relying on the Government's good will and their acceptance of a debate on a prayer.

The Minister will no doubt stress that the Government have every intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations are debated as we propose and therefore the new clause is unnecessary. We assume, being charitable souls, that even this Government, having, for example, halved the money going to the poorest mothers, do not intend that halved sum to stand in perpetuity. We assume that the Government intend to uprate the sum from time to time and, indeed, to table an amendment to assist them in that procedure. If the Government have that intention, it seems that the regulations that ensue should be treated as other uprating regulations and be debated under the affirmative procedure. If the Government have no such intention, the Minister can tell us now and we and the other place will know where we stand.

9.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell)

The reason for making regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure is to provide adequate opportunity for Parliament to debate the issues. In this instance, however, the matters concerned have already been debated twice, once during the passage of last year's measure, and again on this Bill. It is a little difficult to imagine that the House will wish to go over the matter again in some weeks, rather than in months, as it is unlikely that new facts would arise from such a debate.

It is proper to point out that the mere fact that an amount of benefit is subject to an affirmative instrument is no guarantee either that the sums will change or that the matter will be debated. Obviously, it is always open to the Opposition to table a prayer and seek to have it debated. Bearing in mind the recent debates, it does not seem that there is a strong case for this amendment, nor for an affirmative resolution of the House, should uprating arise in future.

Mrs. Beckett

I do not accept the Minister's argument. Should uprating be considered, it would be correct for the matter to be debated under an affirmative resolution. As happens from time to time in our proceedings, it may well he that the Minister did not previously recognise that this was the purpose of the debate. In order to give him time to consider further this reasonable proposition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

9.17 pm
Mr. Major

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This one-page Bill has already generated a few pages of Hansard over a rather short period and I do not think that I need add very much to that weight of paper now, not least because I suspect that Opposition Members who are scribbling on their pads wish to take up some of the time available over the next few minutes.

On Second Reading, I explained in considerable detail the background and objectives of the Bill. We have discussed several related and, thanks to the interventions of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), unrelated subjects in today's debate. It may be appropriate if I recap briefly on why the Bill is needed.

The present system of help with maternity and funeral costs is widely acknowledged to be in urgent need of reform. That, at least, is common cause across the Floor.

Mr. Frank Field

Increase, not reform.

Mr. Major

Not just increase; reform, too. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The system fails to give effective help to many people on low incomes who need assistance, while it provides a large number of small grants to people who do not need them. That is undoubtedly true. Even the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) with his well-known generosity with taxpayers' money will appreciate precisely that proposition. Therefore, we have proposed a much more realistic system, concentrating the available help on people on low incomes, whether in or out of work. I look for some acknowledgment from the Opposition Benches of the fact that there will be help for people in work as well as for those out of work, which did not previously apply. Even the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that that is not a cut but a positive improvement in the available help.

Our proposals were outlined in both the Green Paper and the White Paper on social security reform in 1985, and were debated at length during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986, not least by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is chuntering happily on the Back Benches.

Dr. Godman

Unhappily.

Mr. Major

The hon. Gentleman is unhappy. I am deeply concerned about that, although I must confess that it is not one of my life's ambitions to keep him happy, and no doubt he will say that 1 have not failed.

Parliament approved the essence of these proposals not long ago, and we are here this evening, as the House knows, only because it has emerged that a few vital words necessary to implement the policy that Parliament approved were inadvertently omitted from the 1986 Act. We thought that we had the powers necessary to carry out the policy that Parliament had approved. Subsequent events and advice from our wise friends the lawyers told us that that was not the case. It would clearly be wrong to overturn so soon what Parliament had approved because there were defects in the legislation. We have no intention of doing that or of jettisoning or delaying these much-needed reforms because of such a technical defect. The Bill is designed simply to correct that defect so that the report can proceed as planned.

When the Social Security Act was introduced, it provided, among other things, for a social fund to be set up. It provided for payments out of that fund to meet maternity expenses; funeral expenses; and other needs". We singled out maternity and funerals for special mention for two reasons. First, we always intended these payments to be rather different in nature from other social fund payments. Decisions on many social fund payments will be based on a flexible approach to individuals in varying circumstances, something that the current supplementary benefit system signally fails to provide.

Decisions on maternity and funeral payments will be based on clear-cut criteria. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead is interrupting regularly. We look forward to his intervention from the vertical rather than the seated position. If people meet the criteria that we are setting out, they will get the payment. [Interruption.] The House may get a speech from the hon. Gentleman, but it will not come if he keeps on interrupting me so that I take up too much of the available time.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

The Minister is goading my hon. Friend.

Mr. Major

Nothing is further from my mind, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.

When we first began to consider this matter, it was decided to refer separately in the Bill to maternity and funeral payments. Secondly, this formulation made it easier to introduce the social fund in two stages, with maternity and funeral payments starting in April. 1987. This has the advantage of providing us with a year's experience of operating the social fund before it takes on its new and novel responsibilities, in April 1988.

Those were the proposals that we put before the House last year, and we spent many happy hours, upstairs and downstairs, debating this. The House will be relieved to know that I have no plans to go over all that ground again. On Report, we strengthened the provision for reviews of disputed decisions with the introduction of social fund inspectors. We gave this unexpected novelty, responding to the concern that had been expressed. The Bill was amended in the other place at the end of June to provide that all social fund decisions should be based on regulations and should carry the same appeal rights as other social security benefits.

As the House knows, we did not feel able to accept those amendments in total, because they would have replaced what is clearly a better and more flexible system with one that, for most social fund payments, would be rigid and inappropriate. However, we made some changes in July in response to the concerns that had been expressed. We further strengthened the provision for reviewing cases with the appointment of a social fund commissioner, and we recognised the special nature of maternity and funeral payments in the social fund by making them, unlike other social fund payments, based on regulations decided by adjudication officers and subject to the normal appeals procedure.

Dr. Godman

The Minister may or may not remember that I have asked several questions about the social fund commissioner. For example, I asked from where he or she was to be recruited. Is this to be an internal appointment within the Department, or is the person to be brought into the Department from elsewhere?

Mr. Major

I have just explained that the matter that we are discussing this evening is based upon regulations that are to be decided by adjudication officers and that it will be subject to the normal appeals procedure. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's question goes a little wider than the subject that we are debating this evening, and I must leave my response to it to a more suitable time.

The changes that we have in mind were approved by Parliament, with the result that the Social Security Act 1986 now provides that payments may be made out of the social fund to meet, in prescribed circumstances, maternity expenses and funeral expenses; and to meet other needs in accordance with directions given or guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In this context, the term "prescribed" means specified in or determined in accordance with regulations. The next step— I can reassure the House that this history lesson on the background to this Bill is coming to an end— was for those regulations to be laid. We did that on 16 December. They aimed to give effect to the policy, well known to this House, that was made clear during the proceedings on the 1986 Bill—that is, that effective help would be directed to people on low incomes, with a flat rate sum for maternity and payments for the full, reasonable cost of funerals.

That is the substantive concern that has guided the propositions that we have put before the House from the time of the Green Paper onwards. The Bill seeks to ensure that those propositions may be carried into effect. It is designed to correct the defect that arose in the redrafting of the Bill last July and that was spotted at the time that the regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Bill corrects that defect and ensures that the reforms can proceed in the way that we planned. I commend the Bill to the House.

9.27 pm
Mrs. Beckett

The Opposition remain concerned about the inadequacy of the provision that will be made under the Bill. The Minister's argument went nowhere near convincing us that we were mistaken. He said again this evening that the maternity grant would be realistic and referred to it as concentrating the available help on low-income families both in and out of work. He failed to notice— although I acknowledged this in my opening remarks on our first amendment— that help will be made available through the social fund to a wider group of people, but I pointed out then— and I remain convinced now—that to make help available to a wider group when one is halving the amount of help that is made available to anybody who manages to make a claim is not exactly generous. It means that, although a wider group among the poorest may be able to claim, they will receive far less. I fail entirely to understand why the Minister imagines that that will be welcomed by the Opposition.

We have always questioned why these payments should be made under the social fund. That thought came to my mind when I heard the Minister explain how the treatment of these payments under the social fund will differ from the treatment of other claims and payments under the social fund. The Minister referred to the fact that there are separate arrangements for appeal and for adjudication. When he replies, I hope that he will clarify that point.

The Minister also referred to the fact that there will be special rights of appeal, but I understand that, under the regulations as they were originally drafted and laid, the right of appeal is to exist only in relation to the specified circumstances under which such a payment is to be made—in other words, to whether someone is entitled to a payment, not to whether the payment is adequate. That seems to be only half an appeal.

I wonder whether it was fully realised in the other place when the Minister's noble Friend made the concession that the amount of the payment could not be queried, but only whether any payment should be made. It is a rather curious matter, because we well remember that in the earlier debates on these issues it appeared that the Government's main position was that a truly independent appeal could not be allowed for most of the items claimed under the social fund. That was because a truly independent appeal would have to look at each claim on its merits and would be bound to bust the Government's cash limits. The Government keep telling us that this part of the fund is not cash limited. If that is the case, why is it not possible for the appeal system for this part of the fund to stand on all fours with the present appeal system?

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about the social fund commissioner. I cannot call to mind any information about where that commissioner may be appointed from, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, from answers that I have received, it appears that the social fund inspectors that he will appoint will be drawn from names given to him by the Secretary of State, and that the inspectors will be subject to directions by the Secretary of State, though only to the advice of the commissioner. If the Minister thinks that that is an independent system of appeal, his view of what is independent is typical of this Government's view, and it is not a view that would be shared by people outside.

We are worried about the lack of understanding, even in this House, of how this part of the social fund will work. I notice that on Second Reading two questions were raised about this matter.

Dr. Godman

These inspectors may have a modicum of independence, but surely they will be part of the career structure of the Department. We are not likely to encounter, or are we, non-conformists? In order to maintain their access to the career structure, they will conform.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is right. I understand that it is intended that the officers will be nominated by the Secretary of State and will be subject to his orders. I cannot understand how anybody could think that that is an independent system of appeal.

As I say, two questions were asked on Second Reading about how this part of the social fund will work. I shall clarify the answers given and press the Minister on the information that he gave. One hon. Member asked the Minister if a grant for funeral expenses would be given to someone who might be entitled under income criteria to one of the qualifying benefits—income support, housing benefit or family credit— but who was not claiming income support at the time. The Minister said—I do not think that 1 paraphrase him too much—that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the Government's proposals if such a person were entitled to reimbursement for funeral expenses. It might be in keeping with the spirit of the proposals, but it is not in keeping with the letter of the regulations. They quite specifically say in respect of the period a person has to be in receipt of supplementary benefit, family income supplement or housing benefit". I should be grateful to the Minister if he could clarify this point, because his hon. Friend who asked the question might have been misled into thinking that the Government are being more generous than they are.

Another hon. Member asked about a widow who borrowed money from her son to meet a funeral payment and the Minister told him that such a person would not now need to do that. The Minister's reply was quite fascinating. Is he saying that the rules which apply now about single payments— namely, that if one has borrowed money and met an expense the need for reimbursement no longer exists— will not apply under the social fund? 1 think that this is the first time that such a suggestion has been made. I should be pleased to hear the Minister tell us that that will be the position, and 1 should welcome clarification from the Minister or from his hon. Friend. If the Minister is not saying that someone who borrowed money would be entitled to reimbursement, he seems to be saying that people will be more aware of their rights under the social fund than they were under the single payment scheme—even though they will not have more rights than they had before.

The. hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs Bottomley), who I am sorry to say is not in her place, said that it was perfectly all right to abolish the maternity grant and single payments in their present form. She said that it did not matter that single payments were being abolished because they were not at present claimed on anything like a sufficient basis. I accept the argument that single payments are insufficiently claimed, but it is not clear what magical transformation is expected to take place which will mean that people are much better informed and find it much simpler to make claims under the social fund than under the present system of single payments. This is apart, of course, from the detailed list of entitlements which go with single payments but which could easily be simplified if the Government were prepared to be rather more generous in their payments. A deliberate decision by the Government keeps these matters complicated. It is not necessary for them to be so complicated simply because they are set out in regulations.

I am especially sorry that the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West is not here. I should have warned her that if social fund claims turn out to be easier to make and people find it easier to claim and receive money than under the single payments system, the Government will take steps to abolish them at the earliest possible date. One reason given to us for the abolition of single payments is that too many people claim them and they are drawing too much money. The hon. Lady is probably mistaken in her basic point.

The whole concept of a social fund with a limited budget is deeply alarming. Not only the Opposition but almost all groups which are aware of and have commented on the Government's proposals are alarmed. On all other aspects of the social fund, matters are even worse than we were first told. It is now apparent that loans will be made only to someone who has been on income support for as long as six months. It is apparent that the Government envisage repayments of up to 10 or 15 per cent. of people's benefit being made. It is far from clear what will happen to someone who is judged by the social fund officers not to be in a position to repay such loans. It appears from what I have read of the Government's statements that the Government intend to rule that if a person is not sufficiently well off to repay a loan he will not get anything. I should be interested to know whether the Minister is able to clarify that point.

As in the social fund as a whole, we are seeing under the Bill a return to officers of the DHSS choosing, as their predecessors did in other agencies, between the deserving and the undeserving poor. We are seeing a step away from provision by right, with people having a clear and understood basis on which to claim. I do not say that they had a simple basis on which to claim. I recognise that the system has been inflexible, especially under this Government, but at least people were able to go through the check list of demands and make a claim as of right. Instead of that, we are back to people being asked to go to the DHSS and plead for charity. We remain convinced that these proposals are mean, divisive and damaging. We shall oppose them on Third Reading.

9.38 pm
Mr. Kennedy

I wish to speak briefly on Third Reading to confirm that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Frank Field

Well done.

Mr. Kennedy

Both parties will be in the same Lobby.

Dr. Godman

We shall guide them.

Mr. Kennedy

I have completely lost the thread of my comments. I shall start again. I confirm that the alliance will vote against the Bill.

The most offensive aspect of the Government's actions is that, as I said on Second Reading, this will be the first in a long line of measures which will result in DHSS Ministers being told by their lawyers to rewrite the legislation or be hauled before the courts. They will have to return time and again to the Dispatch Box or to Committees bringing forward more and more alterations to legislation as a result of the social security reviews. This is but the tip of the iceberg.

The fundamental reform announced by the Secretary of State has ended up running into sand. It has been fundamental in the impact it has had on the most vulnerable groups in society but, as the Secretary of State knows, it has not been fundamental in the extent to which it has provided for a fairer, simpler, more efficient social security system.

For example, attention has not been given by Ministers to improving take-up levels. They have made some nods and gestures in that direction, but much of their determination has been to contain, if not to reduce, costs. However the Minister may try to dress it up, the Bill is a cost containment, if not a cost reduction, exercise. The Minister cannot have it any other way.

It is worth noting, for the purposes of the Official Report, what the Social Security Consortium has said. It has continued to raise, among other issues, the practical working of a cash-limited system; the proper definition of community care—for example, grants from the social fund; the unreasonable restriction that loans will not be available to claimants who have been in receipt of income support for less than six months; the issue of mothers under the age of 16 years that the Minister dealt with a few minutes ago, which remains outstanding; and the fact that the £80 level of grant is thoroughly inadequate.

All of these matters, and many others, including independent rights of appeal, remain outstanding, despite the fact that the legislation has been working its way through the system for over 18 months. It is unsatisfactory that, before we have implemented the reform wholesale, we are faced with pre-emptive legislation tidying up the mess which is already anticipated. It is not that the mess will be upon us once the system is up and running; it is in advance of that. Lawyers and DHSS draftsmen are foreseeing that the system will be chaotic. What we have experienced over housing benefit will be nothing compared with what we shall get from the social security reviews. There seems to be no comprehension of that among Ministers.

We have tried to improve the Bill, which may be a necessity in view of the Government's existing legislation, but it is highly offensive and throws up some of the glaring anomalies that the social security reviews will give rise to.

The maternity grant that the Minister is proposing is inadequate in real and cash terms compared with the level following the last general election in 1983.

The system for funeral expenses is not the most sensible system, and I reiterate the point made on Second Reading that it would have been more sensible to have a system with a flat rate payment, with an additional top-up at the discretion of local officers to help people at a time when they most need it. Any sums given could be reclaimed out of the estate of the deceased depending on the circumstances. In that way, much of the distress, which will inevitably take place, could be avoided. It would have been fairer and would have helped to target resources more effectively to those most in need.

The Government have been largely deaf throughout the social security reviews, and this one-page piece of legislation is a further example that that condition has not improved.

9.45 pm
Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I had not proposed to take part in the debate, but I have been surprised at how long the Bill has taken to get through the House.

I leave aside the reasons for the oversight in omitting the provisions from the Social Security Act, because I wish to examine the direct clash of political philosophies that the Bill produces. Conservative Members believe that those who can help themselves should do so and that we should assist those who cannot. The Opposition believe in a blanket pay-out for everyone.

The only common ground over the Bill is the agreement that reform is needed. The maternity grant has remained unchanged at £25 since 1969. It is a derisory sum for those of straitened means. The death grant of £30 has remained unchanged since 1967 and is a mere drop in the bucket for anyone who has to pay for a funeral. It is nothing to those who can afford to pay for a funeral and it is little help to those who cannot. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary. The low level of the grants means that they are of little help to people in need. Giving the grant to everyone does not help those who really need the help.

I am pleased that the £80 maternity grant and the meeting of the reasonable costs of a funeral will not be subject to budgetary constraints. That is an important factor which must be made clear to those who try to denigrate the Bill. However, there may be discussion and dissent about the meaning of the words "reasonable costs". I hope that those who will have to interpret those words will be given clear and generous guidelines.

People who have to bury loved ones cannot run funeral costs through an audit. They are under emotional pressure and they may agree to various arrangements that may not be wise. I hope that the Government will issue guidelines to social security offices to make sure that undue pressure is not put on those who may have agreed to unsuitable arrangements.

I am surprised that one matter has not come to light in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman has not been here."' I have read the various Hansard reports, because I have been approached by local pensioners' groups who have been exceedingly worried about the existing arrangements and have not been satisfied with a mere £30 death grant. People on low incomes have been decidedly worried about that grant and have been asking me for several years to press for an increase. I am delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill and I am surprised that the Opposition are trying to block it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that the £500 savings limit will be increased. That limit is against our political philosphy. The limit should be higher because, as a comfort and security, people should be able to have more than £500 to set against a rainy day before they are asked to dip into their pockets. I support the measure because it is in line with the Conservative party philosophy of helping those who need it most.

9.51 pm
Mr. Frank Field

The Minister has considerable ability at the Dispatch Box. That ability has been deployed tonight, as on other occasions, to describe what this measure is about.

I wish to make a short contribution about the Bill's aims. In spite of the generosity of spirit with which the Minister introduced the measure, he was covering up an unbelievable cock-up by the Government. The Minister told us that our amendment was merely technical. If that amendment had been carried, a coach and horses would have been driven through the Bill. So much for it being a mere technical amendment.

Being also of a generous nature, I should not have drawn attention to that if it had not shown the Government's mean approach to our amendments in Committee. Had the Government accepted one of our amendments, which prescribed the levels of benefit, perhaps we should not have needed this squalid Bill. That was disguised by the quality, cleverness and adroitness of the Minister's tongue tonight. Despite all the wonderful talk from the Government Front Bench, claiming that this was a targeting measure, the Bill introduces a cut. Although some people will receive more than they might have received under the previous scheme, overall the Government will save money to deploy elsewhere— perhaps in the social security budget. With a general election coming up, we do not need to guess where those savings will be made.

Although this does not appear in Roper's "Life of More", in the wonderful film on the subject there is a scene in our Great Hall after Rich has committed perjury. More goes up to Rich, picks up the chain of office round his neck and asks Rich what it is. Rich says that it signifies that he is Chancellor for Wales. More says to Rich that to lose one's soul for the world is one thing, "but for Wales?"

The difference between the Minister and Rich is that Rich did not know that he was doing wrong. The Minister knows that this is a squalid little measure that cuts benefit for large numbers of vulnerable women. The Minister lost his battle in the Department, but he still thought it worth fighting. It is a sign of hope for us that the Minister knows that the measure is wrong. I am sad to say that that hope will not be extended to many of our constituents.

9.54 pm
Mr. Nellist

This is a mean, despicable little Bill. It is significant that in the last two hours we have heard only one contribution from the Tory Back Benches, and that contributor obviously does not understand the debate. The Bill does not represent an extension or a reform of the rights of pensioners and expectant mothers, but imposes a cut in the benefits which they could expect to receive. It ends a statutory right to the present level of benefits and introduces instead a measure which, as has become crystal clear tonight, will be inadequate to meet their needs.

By means of the Bill the Tories are creating a generation of cash-limited children. We have talked about the £25 maternity grant, which was introduced in 1969, and we have heard that according to the Department of Health and Social Services the grant should be about £180., According to the Health Education Council and the Health Visitors Association, it should be about £400. According to some other sources, such as the Daily Mirror and the magazine that is entitled "Parents", the grant should be anything up to £700. All that is on offer this evening at the late stage of Third Reading is £80 for expectant mothers. Hundreds of thousands of mothers on low incomes who are not entitled to or not claiming the qualifying benefits will be denied even the £80 that we have discussed.

It is worth remembering that one in four households has a woman as the sole or main breadwinner of the family because of the number of single parents and the consequences of mass unemployment. I happen to think that the best approach would be to increase the level of real national minimum wages so that people have enough money in their pockets from their earnings to enable them not to have to rely on handouts from the Government. That would be a better approach than merely to increase the level of benefits.

The introduction of the Bill will exacerbate another problem. If a mother is unable to receive from the state the necessary level of support when the first baby comes along, there will be the insidious progress of the bounty bag in our hospitals. The manufacturers of the various aids to women, of nappies through to bottles, for example, will provide one each of a small number of items as samples as a form of almost subliminal advertising in the hope that they will buy the material later when they leave hospital.

The Minister has refused to say how the sum of £80 has been arrived at. Instead, he has referred to pressures on the Department over the allocation of funds. He has not really denied the argument that has been advanced forcefully by myself that the sum was based on the number who would be entitled to the grant and the amount set aside for the purpose. The second was divided by the first and the result was £80.

The Bill perpetuates the Social Security Act 1986 in continuing to place the main burden of the rearing of children on the individual, especially on the working class woman. I consider—I believe that my view is shared by the majority of Labour party members—that the burden should be borne by society as a whole. In other words. we need a universal system of statutory maternity grants that are sufficient to allow children to be given an adequate beginning and reflect genuine costs. Such a system should be coupled with maternity and paternity leave and an expansion of nursing and child care so that both parents can experience the joys and responsibilities of bringing up children.

These reforms should be wedded to an increase in wages for midwives and other supportive staff such as health visitors who are disgracefully low paid by the Government. The first step should he to get rid of the Bill. If we are talking about a massive expansion of health and social services, we need a change of Government. Finances should be under the control of a Labour Government so that we can provide the help that British working people so richly deserve.

9.58 pm
Dr. Godman

It is plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, that, despite the Minister's courtesy, fluency and intellectual skills, the Bill is a dismal correction of a squalid Act. The social fund is designed to save money. In translation, that means that the poor will become poorer.

The Minister referred to a realistic maternity benefit, yet he is talking about £80. Two examples of many from my constituency involved sums that were just short of £200. These payments were received by young pregnant women. In other words, claimants will receive less, not more. They will have the right to appeal, for what that is worth. There is no independent system of appeal. However, the inspectors and the rather curious animal that is known as the social fund commissioner could redress grievances. The commissioner or the inspectors may examine recent records of maternity grants and single payments awarded to claimants. Were that to happen, applicants in, for example, Strathclyde would receive payments much higher than those envisaged by the Government. However, that, I regret to say, is a wholly unrealistic view. The present system, as I have said on many occasions, is both cumbersome and obscure. It causes a great deal—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.